Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Wasif – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 - Section 7-A, 94 and 95 - Claim of Juvenility of Revisionist - Heinous Offence - Rape Offence - Revision is directed against order passed by court of Juvenile Justice Board, arising out of Case Crime, under Sections 420, 457, 471, 120-B I.P.C. - Juvenile Justice Board had cancelled interim bail granted to accused-revisionist - Whether Juvenile Justice Board who is only competent to determine age of revisionist as to whether he was juvenile on the date of incident or not, can cancel the interim bail granted by court of Session Judge and whether Board has vested with its jurisdiction or has exceeded its jurisdiction. Board had failed to perform its obligatory duty provided under the provisions of the Act, 2015 in not deciding the claim of juvenility of revisionist for the last five years. Both the Board as well as the appellate court failed to notice that there is no provision for cancellation of bail once granted to any delinquent juvenile under the Act, 2015.
Finding of the Court:
If it is found that any child below age of 16 years has committed a heinous offence, then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for time being in force, may pass orders like allowing child to go home after advice or admonition or to direct child to participate in group counselling or perform community service or may be released on probation of good conduct or he may be sent to special home for such period not exceeding three years etc - Perusal of provisions of the Act, 2015 establish that in no case the child below sixteen years of age having committed a heinous offence can be detained as convict in regular jails - Punishment as provided under the above provisions is basically of reformative nature - General principles of care and protection of children as given in Chapter 2 of J.J. Act also include a principle of repatriation and restoration of every child with his family at earliest - Even assuming without admitting that the revisionist had failed to appear on the date fixed before Juvenile Justice Board during enquiry under Section 94 of Act, 2015, then at most it would have rejected the claim of juvenility - Board had failed to perform its obligatory duty provided under the provisions of the Act, 2015 in not deciding claim of juvenility of revisionist for the last five years. Both the Board as well as the appellate court failed to notice that there is no provision for cancellation of bail once granted to any delinquent juvenile under the Act, 2015.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
1. This Court vide order 25.03.2022 issued notice to the opposite party No. 2. Office report dated 11.04.2022 indicates that notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 through legal heirs as per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar dated 08.04.2022. Thereafter, the case was again taken up on 11.04.2022. Today when the case is being taken up in the revised call, even no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2, nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. It appears that opposite party No. 2 is not interested to contest the case.
2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is on the record.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist denied the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally.
5. Heard Shri Sushil Shukla, Advocate, assisted by Shri Aditya Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vinay Prakash Sahu, the learned A.G.A. for the State.
6. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 97 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 483 of 2016, under Sections 420, 457, 471, 120-B I.P.C. P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar, by which the Juvenile Justice Board had cancelled the interim bail granted to the accused-revisionist by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar. Aggrieved from the order dated 27.02.2020 the revisionist challenged the same before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2022, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide order dated 29.01.2022, affirming the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Against the aforesaid orders the present revision is being preferred before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the only legal question involved in this case is whether Juvenile Justice Board who is only competent to determine age of revisionist as to whether he was juvenile on the date of incident or not, can cancel the interim bail granted by the court of Session Judge, Bulandshahar and whether the Board has vested with its jurisdiction or has exceeded its jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the Juvenile Justice Board has exceeded its jurisdiction and no power is vested to the Board to cancel interim bail granted by the Court of Session Judge, Bulandshahar.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the facts in brief which arise the present issue is that an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 483 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar was lodged by the infomant-opposite party No. 2 against unknown person. During investigation eight persons were found involved. The revisionist along with his father (co-accused) and two other persons who were also made co-accused in the case, were arrested on 24.07.2016 and from their joint possession Rs. 5,50,000/- were recovered. After being arrested on 24.07.2016 the revisionist moved his regular Bail Application No. 2578 of 2016 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, claiming therein that he was juvenile on the date of incident. In support of his claim for declaring him juvenile the revisionist rests upon his High School certificate of the year, 2017, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the certificate issued by the Principal of Hilman Public School, Agra, certifying his study in Class-Xth and copy of certificate issued by Principal, Yugshakti Gayatri School, Agra, certifying his education in Class-VIIIth.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that in all the abovementioned documents the date of birth of revisionist was consistent as 17.09.1999. It has further been argued that apart
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
